digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

It's Not About Hating Hillary

huffingtonpost.com — It's not about hating Hillary, it's about believing in Barack.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • DCusaVietnamVet, on 05/06/2008, -70/+6http://bushclintonhurtchildren.blogspot.com/
    • westerner22, on 05/06/2008, -9/+17“(...) And that’s why the only way a black guy named Barack Obama who was born in Hawaii, and started his career on the streets of Chicago, can win this race – if you decide that you’ve had enough of the way things are; if you decide that this election is bigger than flag pins and sniper fire and the comments of a former pastor – bigger than the differences between what we look like or where we come from or what party we belong to.

      And if you do – if you decide that this moment is about what kind of country we’ll be in the next year and the next century; about how we’ll provide jobs to the jobless and opportunity to those without it; about health care and good schools and a green planet; about giving our children a better world and a brighter future – then I ask you to enlist your neighbors, and knock on doors, and work your heart out from now until Tuesday. In the face of all cynicism, and doubt, and fear, I ask you to remember what makes a nation – and to believe that we can once again make this nation the land of limitless possibility and unyielding hope – the place where you can still make it if you try. Thank you, and may God Bless the United States of America.”
    • OwdenBowden, on 05/06/2008, -23/+7Once you wake up from the Obama "Dream of Change" and realize that it is business as usual then you are going to beg to have someone else as president because this guy doesn't have what it takes to be a senator let alone the President of the United States.
      • normalkid0615, on 05/06/2008, -4/+10really? and hillary has what it takes cause shes tough? shes tough on telling the truth. die you *****
        • misguidedmonkey, on 05/06/2008, -3/+0I don't think he mentioned Hillary at all, *****.
          I buried this post as inaccurate. It IS about hating Hillary and licking Obama's cornbread hole.
          That's why all Hillary links are negative and Obama links are positive on Digg.
          And we all just so happened to fellate Obama around the time Kevin Rose changed the algorithm. Maybe to favor Obama and delete all the Ron Paul entries from the front page.
          Yes Obama is the best candidate of the top three, but we also HATE Hillary.
        • thirteenthcor, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2I don't think your really getting it yet... See? Hillary is BAD.. and Obama is Good.... See? That's not that hard to figure out is it? Can you wrap your mind around that? Pretty Progressive I know.... But try, just give it a shot. I know you can do it.
      • VinceNoir, on 05/06/2008, -7/+10No one has "what it takes" to be president. America has reached the limits of what it can do in the world and is failing. There are no good candidates this election because no human on the face of the planet can meet the challenges of 21st century government.

        The problem is caused by many parts, but the two biggest are:

        1. The failure of the abilities of human consciousness to be able to make multiple decisions quickly and effectively without being swayed by any kind of personal interests. With the conservatives, those personal interests are profits and business. With the liberals, those personal interests are any number of emotionally driven issues.
        2. The inability of most of the western world to accept that unless you adjust oyur expectations to voluntarily live with massive inconvenience, and discipline yourselves to respond appropriately and holistically to those inconveniences, you will fail in your goal to remain a cohesive civilization.

        Our response to every problem that has been thrown our way for these past 50 years has become increasingly inadequate. The majority of the cause for that inadequacy is the cult of individuality that arose from the 1960s and 1970s.

        We face the threat of environmental disasters on many fronts of which a decent number of our modern technologies can take the blame for causing. How do we respond? We either waste our time and energy protesting the businesses that are responsible. Or we try and create the modern day equivalent of the indulgences of the catholic church and excuse certain polluters because they're throwing money at the problem. Or we just bury our heads in the sand and say, "there is no problem because we can't even prove it's man made".

        We face terrorism from a variety of people with agendas. Instead of trying to find ways to thwart terrorists, what do we do? On the one hand, we launch a poorly planned attack on a country that had little to do with terrorist attacks in the world. That attack turns into the current quagmire in Iraq that we have little choice but to remain engaged in now. On the other hand we waste more time arguing and protesting in the name of peace without ever accepting that humans are not a peaceful animal.

        Do we even consider that part of the problem for the massive disagreements in directions to take might be caused by the intellectual "software" of one or more cultures being completely incapable of understanding or relating to other cultures? No. That's massively inconvenient to the liberals because it smacks of nationalism or even racism. To the dimwits on the right, it's not even conceivable. They actually labor under the delusion that everyone thinks the way they do.

        There is no human solution for the problems we are having. The population of the planet has gotten too big to be managed by human beings. The pace of change has increased tremendously to the point where no human being is capable of keeping up. We are reaching the limits of human self-governance on a world-wide scale.

        So all of you people with your candidates picked out for this Fall, the joke is on you. You are all failures if you can't understand my warnings. There is no acceptable candidate, nor will there be. Do not deceive yourselves into believing in any kind of solution that human beings create. Humans are nothing more than arrogant animals with a tenuous and illusory set of laws and rules as the only distinction from other animals.

        Klaatu 05/06/2008
        • bratterscain, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4If I could multi-digg that, I would.
        • vat0r, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4Chicken little, the sky is falling. Run for your lives! Repent sinners! According to this guy we should all just give up and die. Contrary to what he is saying there are many positive aspects of our global situation. Humans as a species focus more on the negative. If you don't believe me then just take a quick look at the whole of recorded history. Everything is focused on negative events, war and horrible disasters. History is full of people just like Vince. It's not bad, it's not good. It's just a fact.

          Regardless of what the doomsday'ers say humanity has made an incredible amount of positive progress in an even more impressive amount of time. If you look at the current trend of both social and scientific progress the results are quite simply amazing. There is a very high possibility that the answers to our needs will be provided as they always have been. Through human ingenuity, sacrifice and a belief that we can achieve whatever our minds can dream. Yes, we may be animals but there is something different in us. That cannot be denied. We are still evolving and even though we may not be able to achieve our ultimate goals in this current form we may be an important step towards the ones who will.
          • VinceNoir, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2I never said anything about giving up. I simply said that humanity's time is over.
        • InnerRayg, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3So if this is what we -are-, VinceNoir, and never forget that you are human, and you will never stop being human, what is the point of denying or decrying your own existence? If we are built to be violent and then try to solve these problem inadequately, then that's what we will do. There is no alternative, there is no choice, we are just going to do it no matter how much you acknowledge it intellectually.
        • thirteenthcor, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2I for one, welcome our new Communist Overlords.
          • VinceNoir, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1No communism here. Your antiquated notions of reality will be severely challenged in the next few decades. Are you prepared?
        • VinceNoir, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Hmmm... no one here seems to know who Klaatu is. Sad. Truly sad...
          • Digger1218, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Nobody watches old-ass movies. Classic, but too old for 99% of digg users.
      • Jassman, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Dugg for the dead-on comparison of carbon credits to indulgences.
  • westerner22, on 05/06/2008, -73/+56This campaign is not about race.
    When a woman votes FOR a woman, a Catholic votes for a Catholic, a black person for a black candidate – this is IDENTITY VOTING.
    When a guy will not vote for a woman candidate, or a white person for a black candidate – this is BIGOTRY or RACISM. When we will have better schools everywhere there will be less of the ignorance.
    Visit: barackobama.com
    Get involved in the future of our country.
    • Conwaysb0718, on 05/06/2008, -12/+54when a woman votes for a woman solely because shes a woman and thinks its high time a woman was president, thats bigotry.
      when a black person votes for a black candidate solely because they feel its high time a black person should be president its bigotry or racism.

      dont call it a horse of a different color when its still preferential treatment based on gender, race, creed or sexual preference.
      • neognostic, on 05/06/2008, -18/+9Sorry, but you are incorrect.
        big·ot·ry
        1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
        2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
        rac·ism
        1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
        2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
        3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
        • Conwaysb0718, on 05/06/2008, -4/+18big·ot
          n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
          • spidoman, on 05/06/2008, -3/+34pie
            1. a baked food having a filling of fruit, meat, pudding, etc., prepared in a pastry-lined pan or dish and often topped with a pastry crust: apple pie; meat pie.

            mmmmmm pie.
          • petrodollar, on 05/06/2008, -6/+6"and is intolerant of those who differ."

            You forgot to explain why it's fair to presume people who express a preferance for a candidate based on their gender/race must necessarily be intolerant of people who prefer the other candidate.

            In fact, your agument is undercut by the very fact that the vast majority of Obama supporters have said they will vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination, and the vast majority of Hillary voters have said they will vote for Obama if he gets it.

            Does that sound like INTOLERANCE to you, Conwaysb0718?

            If Hillary and Obama supporters are "bigoted" towards anyone, it's republicans.

            As am I. Because Republicans have a long track record of making ***** decisions that produce ***** outcomes.
          • RX9735, on 05/06/2008, -12/+4Conwaysb0718, you hit the nail on the head with that. Summs up Digg and Obama pretty much. Did you here that nut job say $30.00 a month; or week saved on fuel cost wont help. $30.00 a month would help my part-timers that only bring $400.00 a month. Obama is so out of touch with the lower and middle classes. This scares me.
          • petrodollar, on 05/06/2008, -8/+2If you live in America in 2008 and can only manage to make $400/mo you should kill self immediately.
          • texpundit, on 05/06/2008, -4/+5"...Republicans AND Democrats have a long track record of making ***** decisions that produce ***** outcomes."

            fix'd.
          • DanMiller, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4400 dollars a month based on 40 hours a week is only 5 dollars an hour, way below minimum wage. If you are hurting that bad for money than you need to work fulltime. Also, if you are truly only taking home that much you are on welfare and your wage is only part of the equation. Even if that 30 dollars a month would help, ultimately it will hurt, as we continue to push ourselves into further debt. Please explain to me why the answer to our oil price problems is to have the country take one on the chin while the oil companies continue to collect tax breaks and make record profits. There is no easy solution to this problem but continuing to bow down to corporate interests is wrong.
          • petrodollar, on 05/06/2008, -5/+2No. Republicans' track record is far longer and their ***** decisions produce far ***** outcomes. The worst mistake Carter made was letting a few hostages get kidnapped and causing gas prices to go up for a few months. Bush has sadled us with a $2 trillion war that will have serious economic ramifications for DECADES, and the worst part is that he's not even winning! No Democrat has done anything even remotely as disastrous as blowing all that ***** money and still managing to LOSE to a bunch of poorly trained, poorly armed moslems.

            Republicans also did stupid things like ban internet gambling and elect a dumbass like Norm Coleman to the US Senate.
          • 47f0, on 05/06/2008, -2/+7RX9735 - voters like you scare me - learn to read. The real figure is an average of $28 for the entire "tax holiday" period, not per month. It doesn't fix the problem, it's the little treat Uncle Ray gives his doggy to get it to sit up. It will push up demand, not by the desperately poor who are just trying to get to work, but by Mom in her Lincoln Navigator who will feel more justified in an extra trip to the beach. Demand up - prices up. Obama's proposing about $1,000 in tax relief and leaving it up to us to spend it on gas or groceries, while working on real solutions (not fake bandaids) to the energy mess.

            You're out of touch.
          • petrodollar, on 05/06/2008, -5/+2" If you are hurting that bad for money than you need to work fulltime. "

            Not to mention that you can't afford a car when you're making $4800/yr. You can't even get financing. So it's highly unlikely that the ***** making that kind of money is buying gas.
          • RX9735, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4So full-time college students working part-time making $400.00 a month is tough *****? I think not. Do you all ever hear your remarks. Go kill your self if you only make $400.00? WTF? Anyone getting out working deserves a ***** metal in my book. Working people are the back bone of the US.
          • petrodollar, on 05/06/2008, -8/+1When I was in college I waited tables and worked as a bartended and I routinely made over $100/night. Sometimes $2-300 on weekends.

            Any college student who is taking time away from his valuable studies to work at Taco Bell should be shot in the face. That's an extraordinarily inefficient allocation of scare resources. If he devoted that time to improving his grades, he would stand a chance at one day getting a decent job that pays six figures. By sacrificing his grades so that he can scrape up some weed money he is ensuring that he will graduate Mississippi State with a middling GPA and will forever be forever stuck working low wage jobs and earning ***** pay.
          • RX9735, on 05/06/2008, -7/+3A tax break of .30 -.40 cent a gallon does not equal $28.00 for the whole break. Hell .30 cent a gallon would save some over $100.00 per month. Obama has never had to streach the dollar and you are too blind to see that. Lucky you
          • petrodollar, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3lol, you're an idiot. How do you figure the suspension of an 18.4 cent/gallon tax will lower prices 30 - 40 cents?

            Or did you actually mean what you wrote, which is that it would only save .30 - .40 cents, which is far more accurate estimate?

            In any case, suppose you fill up the 14 gallon tank in a Honda Civic 3x a month. This is a liberal estimate, since civics get about 30mpg, which equals 420 miles/gallon, which adds up to 1260 miles/mo, more than most students drive. But in any case it roughly equals the 15k miles/yr that the average person drives.

            14 gallons * .184 = $2.58/fill-up. That's $7.73 PER MONTH!
          • petrodollar, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2"Hell .30 cent a gallon would save some over $100.00 per month."

            Let's do the math. In order to achieve that savings, you would have to purchase 333 gallons of gas per month. The average american drives around 1,300 miles/mo. In order to consume 333 gallons do drive that distance, your care would have to get 3.9mpg.

            Let's say you drive a bigass SUV that get's 12mpg. In order to burn up 333 gallons/mo you would have to drive 3996 miles/mo. That's 48k miles/yr.

            If you're driving an ordinary mid-size sedan, you can expect to get about 22mpg. 22*333 = 7326 miles/mo. That's 87k miles per year!

            Note, the above figure assume a 30 cent savings, when the true figure, if ALL the tax savings are passed on to the consumer, is 18.4 cents! Want me to give you the figures for how much someone would have to drive in order to save $100 with THAT figure, RX9735?

            Or do you give up?
          • srondizzle, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4petrodollar-Per your request, I will give handguns to all high school/college kids working part time jobs for extra cash and instruct them to end their lives.
            I hope you realize how ridiculous you sound.
          • petrodollar, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2No. They should only be shot in the face by others. If they are going to kill themselves, better to do it with a piece of rope or a razor blade or something. Why give perfectly good handguns to kids who are only going to use them once?
          • DanMiller, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3@petro well played sir
        • dafragsta, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1I think you are closer to correct than the definition in the reply. This is a ***** joke:
          "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

          I think that's absolutely not bigotry. I think that would make 90% of the people on this planet bigots as I have seen, regardless of culture, that outsiders have more of an uphill battle when integrating into a new crowd than do the ones who already have something in common. We all strongly prefer people we can identify with. It doesn't make you racist or bigoted.

          What makes you a racist or bigot is assuming others of a different race, sex, religion, background, etc. are inferior. That's it. It has nothing to do with stereotypes (some of which perpetuate themselves, yet you are racist for pointing them out) or preferring others you identify with. If you think a black person is inferior, you are racist. If you are white and choose not to go to Compton after dark to make new friends, you are just ***** smart. I would expect black people to feel the same way about rural towns in ***** Texas.
          • petrodollar, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1"What makes you a racist or bigot is assuming others of a different race, sex, religion, background, etc. are inferior."

            No. What makes you a bigot is acting on that assumption. I assume that other people are inferiors all the time, but I still treat them with respect because I don't want them to spit in my food while they're preparing it.

            This is especially true when I travel to red states where the locals are often ape-like and will get agitated if you look like an outsider.
          • DanMiller, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1So as long as you don't lynch someone your setting pretty. If you ASSUME that other human beings are inferior due to their race, sex, religion background than you are a bigot. How does acting on it make a difference. Only if you lynch someone are you now a bigot?
          • petrodollar, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1You don't have to lynch them. You could just make nasty comments about them under your breath in the presence of others. In either case, you're not merely believing in someone's inferiority, but acting on it. In order to be a bigot, one must engage in bigotry. If you hate blacks but hire them to work for you because you don't want to be seen as a racist, you're not commiting any bigoted acts, and therefore not engaging in bigotry. Therefore you are not a bigot.
          • bratterscain, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Ignorance is assuming one person or race is not better at something than another. It may be saying Africans are better at evading skin cancer and certain diseases than whites due to how and where they evolved. Same differences can be said with caucasians and asians. I think to say bigots don't have some degree of truth in their views is ignorant. We're all different and some better than certain things than others and some differences can be generalized. There, I said it, I made generalizations about certain groups of evolved races of humans. If that's racist, ***** it, I'm racist.
          • dafragsta, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1bratterscain, you nailed it with the skin cancer analogy and that's what I mean. It's totally not OK to point out the differences because of the taboo (which I think is *****) but my point is that it's not bigotry without real hatred or general dislike of one type of person BASED on those stereotypes alone.
      • taiakpun, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2VERY WELL SAID CONWAYSB0718!
      • tresorArt, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1actually, when a black person votes etc that's called prejudice, not racism. Racism is systemic. But basically, yeah.
      • Iwantawii, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Without the black vote, Obama would have no chance in hell of taking the seat. The super delegates know this, and furthermore if Clinton was given the nomination at least a chunk of the Obama supporters simply wouldn't vote, which could give the win to the republican party. Do you think the superdellies would take a gamble on this? Blacks make up a large portion of the high population, liberal city areas. Both parties, above all, want one of their candidates to win regardless if even Nathan Petrelli himself was running for the other camp. I really don't see how Clinton has much of a shot at this, it would be logical of the democratic super delegates to nominate Obama simply because of the black vote. Am I missing something?
    • GreatSunJester, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3http://www.comics.com/creators/union/archive/union ...

      Accuracy in comics!
    • truthhammer, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Very true.
    • davidrools, on 05/06/2008, -5/+6What is it called when a white guy votes for a black guy to try and prove he's not a racist?

      That's called trying to take away Barack's credibility with a stupid idea that ignores the fact that people can actually like Obama and what he stands for.
      • RX9735, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4Voting for Obama because it is the "next big thing" on digg is worse. If you all would have supported him from the get go that would have been fine. You all cram that Ron Paul ***** down our throats and when you all found out he was not going to come close to winning you side with Obama and expext credibility. Not going to happen. If Obama wins fair I would back him like no one else however not counting Flor. and Mich. and I will back McCain as a protest vote.
        • WasabiBomb, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Repeat after me: "Digg is not one person."

          Initially I was for Hillary, until I saw her jump on the "videogames are evil" bandwagon. After looking further into the candidates' policies, I found that Obama was closest to what I believe in.

          I NEVER liked Ron Paul... and I know I'm not alone in that.
        • DanMiller, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3Seriously, you are backing a candidate due to their policy on violent games? Wow, climb out of the basement and look around. We have a war which has been mismanaged, an economy in a downward spiral, global enviroment issues. In what universe does your ability to purchase GTA IV for your 10 year old have any bearing.
        • Darksoul, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Excuse me DanMIller he is entitled to his opinion as are you that is a concern for him and I agree with him I don't care that's only a video game to you its something I and he are into and don't kid yourself if she knew she could ban video games she would if it was just simple legislation that's one thing I agree with kids not getting the game but at the same time at what age does a person become more mature enough to play it who is it for her to say that a 15 year old can't play gta if he understands that's it not real.

          Only the parents get to decide that if we keep making the politicians do the work for the parents then there will be alot of ***** that will be illegal in this country. By the way your smart ass comment of "climb out of the basement" didn't help you at all had it not been for that my words would of been a bit different.
          • DanMiller, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) today announced that she will introduce legislation to help keep inappropriate video games out of the hands of children. She also called upon the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to take immediate action to determine the source of graphic pornographic and violent content appearing on the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas video game. Recent reports have revealed that this graphic content can be unlocked by following instructions widely available on the Internet.

            “The disturbing material in Grand Theft Auto and other games like it is stealing the innocence of our children and it’s making the difficult job of being a parent even harder,” said Senator Clinton. “I am announcing these measures today because I believe that the ability of our children to access pornographic and outrageously violent material on video games rated for adults is spiraling out of control.”

            "Senator Clinton announced that the legislation she will introduce will put some teeth into video game ratings by instituting a financial penalty for retailers who fail to enforce the rules. It will prohibit the sale of violent and sexually explicit video games to minors and put in place a $5000 penalty for those who violate the law. "
            Taken from http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/det ...

            Hillary Clinton has never stated that she wants to ban violent games, only to control the access to children as well as insuring that game developers don't produce games with content which is "hidden" in an effort to circumvent the rating system.

            You are right, he is entitled to is opinion, but his opinion should be based on some realm of fact rather than the alarmist slippery slope stance taken by many underage gamers on Digg.

            The reality is that many parents don't take control of their children, putting in a device which stops 12 year old Billy from buying GTA IV without mom's permission is not a bad thing.

            BTW I don't care if you don't like my basement comment or not, it hardly undermines the logic of the rest.
        • theapplegod, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0Regardless of others, I respect your comment. Obama has been made to be an American Idol, and I think America will regret this less than a year in if he is elected. You love his speeches, you like who he is... that's great, but what is he going to going to do besides make you feel good? There's Joel Osteen for that every week.

          We need "experience and change" not just "change" as Obama touts as the Lemmings drink his Kool-Aid. The "Diggers" moved from Paul to Obama virtually overnight.
    • trogdor282, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4I wonder who the KKK supports. Cuz according to that South Park episode the other side always wins. HOT SHOWER! HOT SHOWER! HOT SHOWER!
    • IslandDog, on 05/06/2008, -9/+13"Get involved in the future of our country."

      Involved with socialism....welfare state.....higher taxes.......

      No thanks.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5Keep telling yourself that.
    • JettaMan, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5What if I don't like Hilarity or Barack or McCain? What if they all have essentially the same tired, worn out ideas?
      • GreatSunJester, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6Welcome to American politics -- choose the lesser evil and pray.

        To mis-quote a classic: God rest and keep the politicians..... as far away as possible.
      • gandhii, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Then you're smarter than most. And still screwed, regardless.
    • bentl1, on 05/06/2008, -4/+5I'll believe that it's not about blacks being racists when 90% of them vote for the white candidate instead of impulsively pulling the lever for a proven serial racist like Obama. There isn't any proof that Obama isn't a racist, and over twenty years of history proving he is exactly that. Don't be an Obama lemming, take a moment to think how your life will be affected by having such a crooked, racist liar having control over the most powerful country on the planet ...... Think "Clinton" on steriods .... utterly corrupt, morally bankrupt and full of hate for whitey ... what kind of message does this send to the rest of the world?
      • Jude007, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1It says Americans hate themselves ?
      • Scaryclouds, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2You do know he is half white? And you loose a lot of credibility when call upon people to disprove a negative.
        Bentl1 prove elves didn't build the Earth.
    • OffPiste, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6If it's not about race why are blacks voting for Hussein 9/1?

      Pretty clear evidence it IS about race.
      • theapplegod, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0And 90% of blacks in NC voted for Obama.... hmmm....
    • hmunkey, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Only 17% of Democrats are black. Weird that more than 50% voted for Obama. Oh, and I'm not black. I support Obama.
      • theapplegod, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0Uuhhhh..... most Dems in NC and SC are black and support Obama.... They didn't give Hill even a fighting chance....
  • DCusaVietnamVet, on 05/06/2008, -48/+185He knew 6 days before the war not to go while Hillary voted to go. She didn't even have the judgement to read the report before voting to go to war in Iraq. He does have 8 yrs experience as a Illinois state senator and he will have 4 yrs as a united states senator when he is president. Hillary only will have 8 yrs as a united states senator so he does have 4 more yrs in elected office than Hillary. He also passed the following three bills.

    "Barack's Bills"

    1. transparency bill 2006
    2. tech plan 2007 = www.USAspending.gov
    3. sunshine bill 2008
    1. expose's corrupt lobby money
    2. expose's all government spending
    3. expose's future spending


    What these bills do!

    "Give the power to the people to take back our government (watch politicians) through the internet, so we can rally together to stop negative pork barrel spending before it goes up for vote"

    Why would you support anyone else?? Unless your corrupt too??



    I am Barack Obama
    You are Barack Obama
    We are Barack Obama

    always fired up and ready to go

    Danielle Hussein Clarke = working for all Obamanites 10 to 12 hours a day since feb 11th 2007

    Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
    • coyote1284, on 05/06/2008, -17/+24inB4 "lay off the kool-aid Obama-bot"
      • Darksoul, on 05/06/2008, -9/+7You people who dugg this moron up are stupid as hell.
      • SenorCardgage74, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3Dispute what he ACTUALLY said or go ***** yourself.
        • ElectricKetchup, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5>"We are Barack Obama"

          No. I am not Barack Obama, and neither are you.
          • dswinscoe, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1metaphors and scoundrels - which is which?
    • dswinscoe, on 05/06/2008, -9/+6inB4 coyote1284's brain melted due to a decade of toxic NeoCon-BS fallout! But coyote, there is hope, and even though you missed it apparently, DCusaVietnamVet speaks the truth, and there is still time to recapture the spark that captivated the imaginations of generations, ever since our founding fathers had the spirit and passion to begin this noble and "unlikely experiment." Please try to leave some of the the cynicism at the door, though, because there really are many folks who's best interest is the resurrection of this great nation, and even though your fervent skepticism seems to preclude you, there can be hope, and I for one, prefer it over the hopeless, misguided and tortuously fearful last 8 years. Thank you, DCusaVietnamVet for all your efforts. We will be rewarded. Yes We Can!
      • dswinscoe, on 05/06/2008, -5/+2UPDATE: inB4 coyote1284's brain melted due to a decade of toxic NeoCon-BS fallout! But coyote, there is hope, and even though you missed it apparently, DCusaVietnamVet speaks the truth, and there is still time to recapture the spark that captivated the imaginations of generations, ever since our founding fathers had the spirit and passion to begin this noble and "unlikely experiment." Please try to leave some of the cynicism at the door, though, because there really are many folks whose best interest is the resurrection of this great nation, and even though your fervent skepticism seems to preclude you, there can be hope, and I for one, prefer it over the hopeless, misguided and tortuously fearful last 8 years. Thank you, DCusaVietnamVet for all your efforts. We will be rewarded. Yes We Can!
        [fixed 'whose' b4 the punctuation police get here] :-)
      • coyote1284, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I think you pegged me wrong. My comment was intended to steal the thunder from Obama detractors through preemption.
        • dswinscoe, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1really sorry for the misinterpretation - its so hard to tell these days with so many detractors under foot, in a country where patriotism has been usurped as an excuse for shameless violence and blind obedience, and any other expression is often labeled "cheesy" or naive ... but, it doesn't look like my comment was appreciated either - I guess more people understood your subtle innuendo
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/06/2008, -21/+11It took Obama 20 years to know that he shouldn't be associated with Rev. Wright. That's an example of very poor judgement...

      (Wondering how far I'll get dugg down ;-))
      • cranium, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1*****
      • equ1nt1s, on 05/06/2008, -9/+3AMEN!
      • WasabiBomb, on 05/06/2008, -4/+5... And yet McCain hasn't broken ties with Hagee, and Clinton still backs The Family.

        Obama seems to have the moral high ground in this election, TheSwashbuckler.
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Neither Obama nor McCain have the moral high ground...
          • coyote1284, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I hope that you're suggesting they're all equally immoral, I can swallow that.
      • pilot3033, on 05/06/2008, -4/+7This assumes that Rev. Wright has been the same person for 20 years.

        And a quick FYI: Wright's a ***** American Hero, who is incredibly smart and whose ideas are not nearly as radical as the media has made them out to be. The guy ***** did open heart surgery on Linden Johnson. He took a small, failing, black church and turned it into a giant success. We are not talking about some nut job who preaches the backwards gospel on the street or subway, we're talking about an individual who is very talented; and while he may love to hear himself talk, he is by no means a 'bad' person to be friends with.

        This was clear in Obama's initial handling of the situation, and it is quite sad that Wright was spun to be some sort of fanatic, forcing politics into the game, and requiring a stern distancing in the name of politics. It's a shame the way the machine takes great people and turns them into charactures.
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Wright is 67 years old. He hasn't changed that much in the last 20 years.
        • slvrbullet87, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Not that radical, in 2002 saying that aids was invented by the US government to kill black people?

          I know a few people believed that in the early 80's but he needs to look at the evidence.
        • coyote1284, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1"Wright's a ***** American Hero," he doesn't afraid at anything.
      • 47f0, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3"(Wondering how far I'll get dugg down ;-))"

        Apparently, about as far as usual - and justifiably so.
      • Siouxcourtesan, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4Don't you have friends who have opinions that differ from your own? Don't you have friends whose opinions you personally would not want to carry responsibility for?
        Come on. Wright has nothing to do with who Obama is -- that's manifestly obvious -- and nothing to do with his policies. Stop letting the MSM steer your brain around and listen to the candidate, not the talking heads. Primary sources are the best sources, however un-entertaining they may be.
        Wright is not running for President. Obama has split with Wright and has made it clear that he does not agree with those opinions. Don't follow the media around, they're looking for ratings, and all you're getting out of the deal is a soft head.
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3Wright has nothing to do with who Obama is? Guess you're calling Obama a liar then:

          And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children.

          --- Barack Obama
        • wndx, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Loving somebody like family does not mean that you agree with all of their opinions. Nowhere does he say that Wright influenced how he viewed politics or government.
      • alanflores, on 05/06/2008, -3/+5booooo for being stupid, expecting to get dugg down and still posting stupid comments.
      • dafunkmonster, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Well, it's either poor judgement, or he's lying about what he thinks now...
    • highdimension, on 05/06/2008, -6/+27Sorry, I'm a staunch Obama supporter, but your post was extra cheesy.
      • seeyounorth, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7Agreed, a couple of the comments in this thread alone are rife with sensationalism. I support Obama but some of these comments made me a little sick.
        • InnerRayg, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3If you have any kind of sense Digg as a whole will make you sick.

          And yet it's like a drug. I just can't stop coming back.
    • Flamancot, on 05/06/2008, -3/+6"Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity."

      Word, son. I don't hate hillary, and i didn't hate bill - but nothing's changing. Obama is the only choice.
      DuGG
      • InnerRayg, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1One could argue that things have changed; depending on where you are the first Bush years really weren't bad, and more so for the first Clinton years. In fact, I could argue that doing the same thing in 2004 was the only really bad decision the voters have made.
    • equ1nt1s, on 05/06/2008, -9/+4LOL, I can't believe people still are okay with the statement... "Barack Obama would have voted against the war." O RLY? Find me a politician who wouldn't say the same thing if they could. Fact is, a UNITED STATES SENATOR (note that he just become one here recently, quite some time after the whole war thing) probably has more access the knowledge the public doesn't and will never know. Could that be why ***** everybody in the Senate voted to go to war? Maybe, but there's always the more likely (lol) counter-theory, "Of course not, it was an elaborate lie to fuel private companies and to yada-yada-yada Haliburton yada-yada-yada Skull and Bones." Well, allow me to retort; you people honestly think that George Bush and Dick Chaney crafted all that BS and then passed it off to 100 experienced United States Senators? To say that any one of you know absolutely everything about the war and the reasons we are over there is complete BS.

      I'm gonna throw in a term that you liberal-nut jobs love so much, sheeple; yeah, that's right, all of you Obama-fans are sheeple, just like the Ron Paul nuts (thank god that's over with).

      "But Equ1nt1s, with your clever name and numbers instead of i's, we aren't sheeple, because we are mindlessly following the political propaganda by a politician... O SHI-"

      Face it losers, politicians are politicians, they're going to lie to you and tell you everything you want to hear. Obama just seems to be banking more on the young and liberal vote (a bold strategy considering they never vote) knowing that he'll just take the black vote anyway for being, uh, more black than Hillary. This isn't ***** V for Vendetta or 1984, so please, cut the strong emotional arguments about how Obama is going to dress up as Fawkes and bomb Parliament for great justice (calm down, I know no one has said those exact words).

      If elected, lol, he'll do exactly the same thing as my boy W, because when it gets down to it, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DOESN'T DO ALL THAT MUCH ANYWAY, IF YOU PAID ATTENTION IN YOUR 8TH GRADE CIVICS CLASS, YOU WOULD HAVE LEARNED ABOUT SOMETHING CALLED CHECKS AND BALANCES. If Obama is going to do half of the outrageous things you tards think he will, which he won't, it has to go through Congress first (you know, that place full of crooks and liars that he refers to).

      This is going to be dugg down like no tomorrow, but hey, ***** y'all, you ruined Digg.
      • DanMiller, on 05/06/2008, -4/+1I'm not going to bother playing the your a sheep game, but just a point. Yes, there are checks and balances so obviously presidential power is limited. However, the president does wield some rather important power. Since the country is so divided the house and senate rarely slant more than a few seats in majority for one party or another. Since the president can veto a bill and send it back for a 2/3rd vote this often stalls legislation which has been an issue with Bush.

        Also, the current administration has done much to expand presidential power. The Bush administration has made decrees stating that they can ignore treaties and certain civil liberties while while circumventing the supreme court. I don't pretend to know all of the ins and outs so I won't expand to much but I invite anyone who wants to provide additional info.

        However, in all of this you are right, the president is not going to single handedly change the system. What he/she can do is provide leadership that unites the citizens of this country to expect something different from it's leaders, sadly I guess you don't.
        • equ1nt1s, on 05/06/2008, -4/+1"Your is not the same as you're you illiterate prick." -Equ1nt1s

          It's not that I don't. I just hate logging onto Digg and seeing another ***** Obama piece dugg up all the way.

          "Since the country is so divided the house and senate rarely slant more than a few seats in majority for one party or another. Since the president can veto a bill and send it back for a 2/3rd vote this often stalls legislation which has been an issue with Bush." Really? So this has never been a problem until the current administration? Haha.

          Expanding presidential power? Honestly, what are you people so afraid of anyway? Illegal wiretaps? How do you think the NSA has been working, since, FOREVER? On sunshine and legal practices? Yeah, your civil liberties are going to be ignored when you talk about blowing some building up over a phone. The government doesn't give two ***** about that call you made to your friend telling him about the joint you smoked last weekend.

          Ignoring treaties? I don't mean to sound like a redneck and say, "We're America, ***** everyone else," but that's exactly the mentality we should have. We're the last super-power left in the world, other countries are banding together because they're tired of our continuous success. Don't give me that BS about, "Oh, but other countries hate us now," when have other countries not hated us? It's nothing new, even in WW1 and WW2 we weren't doing a god damn thing except being Murica-kicking ass at life, and they still ***** with us. Fact is, other countries have hated us for so long that now we need to be stronger than ever with China pulling their heads out of Lenin's ***** and that EU *****. You like how your gas prices aren't 8+ dollars at the pump? That's because our government officials have told those other countries and treaties they can shove it. You think everything is all sunshine and lollipops in other countries? Hell no, everything is expensive as *****. We need to retake the "*****-off, this is America and we don't play that pussy *****" Attitude again. If it involves cleaning this country up through less than legal practices, (I for one am firmly for shutting down national media stations for stirring up fear and BS for a profit while killing the morale of the country), I'm all for it.

          And no, I know how neo-con, or whatever you want to call it, this sounds; but it's the truth.

          The needs of America and the American people come second to none.
          • ssn697, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1"I for one am firmly for shutting down national media stations for stirring up fear and BS for a profit while killing the morale of the country"

            Tell us how you REALLY feel!
        • GhostyBoy, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I disagree with almost everything you just said, but I appreciate the fact that you are expressing your point of view the way it is instead of dressing it up like candy and trying to sell it.
      • dswinscoe, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2"One voice can change a room, and if it can change a room, it can change a city, and if it can change a city…." http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0410/p01s01-uspo.htm ...
        Your voice, however, is quite hoarse, sir, and quite frankly it sounds like the same old a song and dance that we've been forced to listen and watch these 8 long years. No more. Times are changing, and your level of cynicism is not productive, so tone it down a smidgen, and help build for change ... or just get the f out the way. Thanks.
        • equ1nt1s, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1sheep lol
        • wndx, on 05/07/2008, -1/+0You know the thing you aren't mentioning about sheep mentality is that any large group of people can be called sheep. You simply can't have full scale change without a large group of people. The patriots who started this country were sheep. You are a sheep though you follow a different flock. So get over sheeple - it was a stupid term to begin with.
      • coyote1284, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I was with you for the first paragraph, you lost me at "sheeple".
    • jimthenglishman, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4i am obama?
      i never knew that before!
    • lukas88, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5I agree with everything you just said. That doesnt mean i'm not tired of seeing it on digg.

      The problem lies in the fact that some people see digg as an entertainment/news source (technology, remember that?) and some people see it as a soapbox. Soapboxers are welcome to leave.
    • cnot3, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Obama also voted for the Real ID, even though Illinois (his constituents) opposes it.
      • koft, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1What a kick in the nuts. Nobody is perfect I guess but voting for RealID is just *****.
    • Spoomeister, on 05/06/2008, -1/+16 more paragraphs and you could have put that on the label of a bottle of Dr. Bronner's soap.
      "Pure Castille-Campaign! All Obama! ALL ONE"
      (www.drbronner.com)
    • poopdigger, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1"She[Hillary] didn't even have the judgement to read the report before voting to go to war in Iraq"
      I guess you missed the point of the article, but who am I to question such loyalty?
    • JulianLouis, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2Obama ruined digg, why would I vote for him to be president? Seriously digg me down, it doesn't matter.

      P.S. "I am Obama" What?
    • koft, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Preach it brother. We need to be repeating this constantly.
    • volfvolf1, on 05/07/2008, -2/+0vote! We already more than 50000
      Is it true that hillari - idiot?
      http://cool-groove.blog.com/3090211/
    • volfvolf1, on 05/07/2008, -2/+0vote! We already more than 50000
      Is it true that hillari - idiot?
      http://cool-groove.blog.com/3090211/
  • radiantarchon, on 05/06/2008, -60/+17Barack is an awesome speaker and all but he's a liberal which means he gets votes by promising to steal from the rich and give to the poor. unlike most people i'd rather earn my money like my parents did. we used to be poor but now with hard work we have a huge house and three cars. now obama wants to take away what my family has earned
    • sharpfork, on 05/06/2008, -8/+16At least the democrats taxing people will make us consider how our money is being spent. The GOP is running an insane deficit with control of the federal government. We should be paying for what our federal government is doing instead of passing it off to the next generation- prolly most of you guys. The GOP is like a 10 year old with a no limit credit card and you are gonna get stuck with the bills. Make people pay for the ***** the the federal government is doing and they might take a moment to consider where exactly that money is going.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 05/06/2008, -6/+1WTF? "At least the democrats taxing people will make us consider how our money is being spent" may be the lamest liberal excuse that I've ever heard for justifying the out of control Democrat tax and spend policy. And don't get me wrong, the Republicans also have a spending problem. I've just never heard such a lame justification for taxation.
    • DCusaVietnamVet, on 05/06/2008, -20/+11The rich didn't get rich by working hard. They got rich on the backs of those who did work hard. The super rich are only rich because we the people keep bending over backwards for them and their false wealth.

      I won't work for the rich. I will never respect anyone who has millions of dollars because i know they made it on the backs of others.

      No one person should have but a little bit more from work they do in their lives and if they do have more they should understand that it is for them to share it with those who don't have the ability to do as much.

      I know all my life i have helped others more than i have been helped and i know that some people don't have the physical or mental ability to work hard and so people who do work harder should do more because they can while others many times can't do as much.

      This whole idea of passing wealth down to kids and people making millions while others make pennies is sick and wrong and that is what is the matter with this world.

      AMERICA FREEDOM == THE FREEDOM TO RIP OFF THE POOR == THE FREEDOM TO ABUSE THE ELDERLY == THE FREEDOM TO STEAL BY DECEPTION == NOT THAT IS NOT THE AMERICA I SUPPORT.. I WOULD RATHER SUPPORT A DICTATOR WHO FEEDS ALL THE POOR AND TAKES CARE OF THE ELDERLY AND KEEPS PEOPLE FROM ABUSING FOOD AND WEALTH.. BECAUSE AT LEAST THOSE LEADERS CARE WHILE IN THE USA WHAT WE GET IS A FALSE FREEDOM WITH LEADERS AND SPORTS STARS AND MOVIE STARS WHO SUPPORT THE GLORY OF WEALTH AND NOT THE GLORY OF LOVE AND CARING
      • BaseballGuyCAA, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6Sweden will welcome you with open arms.
      • InfamousAtheist, on 05/06/2008, -1/+10Man I have issues with the social and financial divisions in our capitalist economy too... but you sound like a socialist.

        Let me ask you this: if you take away people's money so that they only have a little more than they need to get by, why would anyone choose to start a business, innovate new products (that make your life easier, or save it when you're ill... for example) if they could reap no reward for it? Money is how we reward people for their ideas and actions. Taking it away in the name of equality removes all motivation for people to do anything. We'd become of nation of sloths and progress would stop.
        • masterm1nd, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2We would be technologically deferred thus making life more difficult for everyone
        • romistrub, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4I agree, but I'm not against socialism for this reason: I can't think of any successful socialist society that leaves its most successful citizens with only "little more than they need to get by."
        • DanMiller, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Lets not pretend like raising taxes on the highest 1% is going to give them only enough money to scrape by. If I make 100 million a year and pay 90% tax I'm still taking home 10 million, which last I checked is not scraping by. I am by no means whatsoever suggesting this to actually be done but the idea that the only way to make the economy work is to keep taxes low on the wealthy is absurd. The fact that republicans scream socialism every time that someone mentions raising taxes on the wealthy is a fallacy and should be ignored.
        • OralCavity, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2if money is the only reason why people do things then why is anyone ever a teacher or a social worker? at that point why would anyone not be a hedge fund manager (or working towards that)?
          money is a reward for working hard, but in my experience it is not why people choose what they do.
          • DanMiller, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Some people choose professions because they truly enjoy what they do, others do it for "perks" not associated with pay. My wife is a teacher not only because she enjoys it but because she gets 3 months during the summer to be at home with our son. Other positions are taken because of a lesser amount of energy needed to obtain that high paying position. Most people would agree that an entry level nursing assistant position is easier than 8+ years of med school.
    • WHNA, on 05/06/2008, -7/+9Your post is proof that money cannot buy intelligence.
      • skidme, on 05/06/2008, -7/+3Why's that? When people attend college they are mostly liberals. As they get a job and earn money they become more conservative. His behavior is typical of the American Dream.
        • neognostic, on 05/06/2008, -3/+6Cite source
          • skidme, on 05/06/2008, -6/+2The source is myself, you bureaucrat.
          • OralCavity, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3sounds like a biased source
          • ace429k, on 05/07/2008, -4/+1skidme. is yer name about skid stains in your pants?

            very conservative of you. i try to save toilet paper too. but i dont go that far.

        • DanMiller, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1I think it has less to do with the money you make, and perhaps more with age and exposure to the world. As we age we see the futility in many ways of trying to help others. The idea of Capitilism and the Neo-Con doctrine is let the market sort it out and leave the humanity on the porch. Many very wealthy successful people are Liberals.
    • InfamousAtheist, on 05/06/2008, -10/+11You do a great job regurgitating those republican sound bites. Have you done any research yourself, or even considered thinking about your comments before you make them?

      The tax and spend "liberal" myth is a complete fabrication that the so-called "conservatives" (HA!) in our country use to get votes when they can't stand up on the issues.

      You have a brain. Use it.
      • masterm1nd, on 05/06/2008, -10/+4Are you sure about that? You may want consider some of your own advice.
        • neognostic, on 05/06/2008, -2/+7Since you are too lazy to do the research or open your eyes, I did it for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S. ...
          • petrodollar, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2lolercaust.

            I'm sure all that spending under Reagan/Bush was somehow Carter's fault.
        • masterm1nd, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Since when is national debt a measure of ones taxing and spending? It is entirely dependent on the situation the president inherited. Why don't you post stats for taxing and spending because that is what your claim was...
          • DanMiller, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2So, as long as you cut taxes AND spend then you are in the clear? National debt is a reasonable measure of how much the country is spending versus how much in tax they are collecting.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2Ok, the taxing part, democrats obviously have that one locked up. The spending part, highly dependent on external forces. Let's look at taxation, spending, and world situation and see if we get different results
          • DanMiller, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2You can't have it both ways. Democrats want to tax according to what we spend. Republicans want to lower taxes while continuing to spend the same amount. You can talk about world situation but the war we are in is not necessary or at least not in it's current form. There is a reason so many elderly like the Republicans. Low cost now with the bill sent to the young, no worries, you'll be dead long before the repo man comes knocking.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2You're overlooking the fact that in the right situation, lowering taxes actually generates more economic activity thus bringing in more revenue for the government. And if you're theory about why old people like republicans were true, than why would you and I not have the same motive? And the Iraq war is pretty irrelevant in the context historical statistics.
          • DanMiller, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Yes, lowering taxes to a point can stimulate the economy, however, historically it rarely stimulates it to a point that yields a negating result. There is a breaking point either way, nearly impossible to hit. You either tax to much and productivity drops or tax to little and the government doesn't return tax revenue. Also don't forget that the money taken by the government in form of taxes is not lost. Money is spent on govenment contracts, into govenment employee paychecks, etc. All of this money is than recirculated into the economy not lost.

            I don't know your age and I don't know your upbringing, lets not pretend like my statement regarding the elderly is held up as fact, simply a generalization to make a point. I don't know your upbringing or background, who knows why you like to pretend the Republicans actually cut taxes for the middle class or curb spending.

            The Iraq war is very relevant since it is our most recent example of a Republican stance which has resulted in a massive debt, made worse by irresponsibly cutting taxes for political gain.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3Ok, well let's not take either of our words for it, and look at revenue vs spending in relation to world context.

            If the Iraq war is relevant, than so is Katrina. And so is 911, which is ultimately why we are in wars. Greatest natural disaster on American soil ever + greatest attack on American soil ever = moot point
          • DanMiller, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2We aren't at war because of Katrina and the amount spent in government funds is a drop in the bucket comparably. We went to war with Afganistan because of 9/11. We went to war with Iraq on faulty intellegence, THEN on top of that ignored top advisors and went in assuming it was going to be a simple in and out operation. Mission Accomplished anyone? Lets not pretend like the war in Iraq is anything more than a war to keep control of valuable resources in a volitile region. Almost every step by the current administration has resulted in increased strife for the nation and everyone involved. It could have been possible to step away from 9/11 safer while still maintaining our national economy, the American people are footing the bill for Bush's war.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2Where did you get we are at war because of Katrina? I don't think we would be in either war had 911 not happened. I think it's naive to say faulty intelligence is the single reason we are at war. I think Saddam, war on terror, middle east stability, 911, oil, genocide, WMD, other nations, faulty intelligence and probably a dozen other reasons factor in. And 911 is what than made many of those factors relevant to the US. I probably wouldn't agree with the Iraq war at the time had I been involved at the time but I also don't agree that pulling out towards the end is the next logical choice from where we are. The major damage is done so the whole future is determined by the little blip in how we now end this, preferably successfully. I guess a good metaphor would be, you wouldn't pull out of your girlfriend had you already busted a nut.

          • DanMiller, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2I fail to see how staying the course and continuing to throw good money after bad equates to a good policy. I agree that pulling out of the war is not the immediate answer to fixing the economic crisis, however, getting back to what this is about. Cutting taxes in a time of war is irresponsible. Previous generations sacrificed for their country. People bought war bonds, did without basic necessities, and lived with an overall lower standard of living. This is the sad state of affairs, we want our soldiers to go and die for cheap oil while we wear our flag pins and scream support the troops. The current doctrine seems to be Gain Everything, Give Nothing.

            Oh, and the girlfriend thing, EW!
            The fact that you equate unsafe sex practices with war scares me..

            We should probably stop arguing, no one cares and we just keep burying each other. :)
          • masterm1nd, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2Equate? Do you even know what a metaphor is?
          • masterm1nd, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Anyways I explained the logic. There are costs and benefits to Iraq war. We have already paid a majority of the cost in terms of money and death, if we pull out now we reap zero benefit and actually end up in a much worse position than not having spent anything at all. World perception and trust of the US, stability and freedom to millions of Iraqis, and the war on terror being major things that come to mind and are riding on this. That being said, we can pitch in a few more nickels and receive all of the benefits. Or we can leave with the store keeping our 80 cents of ours and punching us in the face.
          • DanMiller, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Yes I understand what equate means, unfortunately digg has a pesky way of omitting sarcasm and humourous tone.

            Your argument that pulling out of the war in Iraq will reap us zero benefit is simply unsound. There is no true proof that leaving Iraq will result in increased risk for American lives, there is a guarantee that additional soldiers will die if we stay. World perception of us is already destroyed, we shouldn't pretend like anyone else is fooled by our "humanitarian efforts". I'm sorry but if I walk into a store and the shopkeeper keeps throwing books at me and screaming at me to leave I'm not going to stick around so that my friends won't call me a pussy. Before you can argue cost/benefit you need to actually have some kind of benefit that can actually be accounted for. This has completely veered off topic since we were originally discussing tax cuts, which I still feel are irresponsible since we are conduciing a war, right or wrong.

            Either way I appreciate the discussion even when it has perhaps gotten a bit nasty. I'm going to retire from this topic and move on to the next controversial post. I'm sure we'll meet again. :)
          • masterm1nd, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1If you don't think there would be a difference in US perception if we won the war on terror and brought freedom and peace to Iraqis, vs starting a war, ***** ***** up and than leaving without fixing it, you are crazy. You either get involved in a war and win it. Get involved in a war and lose it. Or don't get involved in the war at all. You DO NOT start a war and than just forget about it. That is the only thing you do not do.
    • Gregbertt, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5Oh, come on now. If you drop me from a plane I'll land a bit to the right of center, but that's a bunch of bull crap. No one wants to 'take' what you say your family has earned. You can disagree with Obama, Hillary or anyone else just fine without resorting to hyperbole like that. There *are* actual issues on the table that you can go ahead and disagree with, you know.
    • alanflores, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1boooooo. got a huge house and multiple cars and you think you're rich??? you ain't rich enough..
    • chapwag1001, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Ah, this right here people is the demise of our country. Kids like this who think that just because Obama may return taxes back to normalcy from what they are now means that they are taking money from their parents. Truthfully, I think you should rethink what you said because if I really wanted to I could go to the bank right now, take out a loan, get a nice "big" house and some cars and then I'd be "rich" according to your understanding of being wealthy. Money isn't everything my friend, but rather the intelligence that earned somebody that money. So, next time do some research, and don't write what your parents say at the dinner table here because they seem to be ill-informed. "YOUR" MONEY ISN'T GOING ANYWHERE!" Oh, and if you didn't know this either, "your" taxes that your parents pay aren't going to cancer research, or educational systems to teach ignorant kids like you what the real world is like, but its going down the drain on a pretty much useless war. Keep your posts to the video game diggs, because you clearly don't know what your talking about, and your parents probably don't either. Live life you think it should be, don't let others dictate your fate for you.
    • 5celery, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1no - you are thinking of Robin Hood...this is different...you have been mislead
  • Beylan, on 05/06/2008, -29/+221Its not about hating Hillary? News to me, I hate that power-mad bitch.
    • PopcornDave, on 05/06/2008, -1/+13No, it's more about not trusting her Machevellian political scheming.
    • TheBogie, on 05/06/2008, -13/+0Agreed. At this point Barrack is the lesser of the 3 evils. He's a pretty good pick for a "lesser evil" too.

      Then again, Satan himself would be a "lesser evil" as compared to Hilliary. If an 8 year old girl read a poem to the devil, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't mistake it for sniper fire.

      In short, it IS about "hating Hilliary".
      • RealmDown, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3This is the problem with politics recently. We don't vote for candidates anymore.

        We vote against them.
        • petrodollar, on 05/06/2008, -4/+1To be fair, that makes a lot of sense when the politicians we're voting against get us into ***** $2 trillion wars and then LOSE them.

          I mean, how do you lose a war to ragheads? Ragdheads can't even fight. They're not real warriors.
    • ogisdan, on 05/06/2008, -2/+10Soo much truth in this post. ***** that bitch.
      • Volaitle86, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2it's really sad how many times a day I say that
    • lewiscb, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1agreed.
    • Adamness, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4I'm more against Hillary than for Obama. I'm sure Obama's a nice guy, but I just don't agree with him on issues that matter. There's something deeper about Hillary and the Clinton tactics that make me go from "Meh, I don't agree with her" to "Man, I really can't stand her."

      But what do I know, I'm just a Paultard moving on to Barrtard.
    • ivanmarsh, on 05/06/2008, -2/+9Agreed... I'm all for Obama.

      Hillary is everything that's wrong with American politics, she's set women in politics back fifty years.

      Way to be.

    • vermax, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6exactly. Obama is little more than a sexy talker, I hardly love him, and i certainly don't place much faith in him. However, i truly despise Hillary at this point, and that grows every day.
    • volfvolf1, on 05/07/2008, -1/+0vote! We already more than 50000
      Is it true that hillari - idiot?
      http://cool-groove.blog.com/3090211/
  • kroses, on 05/06/2008, -16/+85Oh, but she is soooooooo easy to hate!!!
  • actorboy, on 05/06/2008, -10/+56Well....it *wasn't* about hating Hillary.
    • skidme, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2Yeah it was. I mean, is.
    • Schmapdi, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6Yeah - Like Actorboy I was pretty ambivalent about HRC when this race started - she wasn't my favorite but I had no big problems with her either. Seeing how low she's stooped, and how she's acting more and more like President Bush nowadays, how much she'll pander, etc, etc - I'd say I'm 75% pro-Obama 25% anti-Clinton now. Maybe 70/30 somedays.
      • mozert, on 05/06/2008, -3/+275+25=100,
        70+30=100.
        so either you are a joker or you have eaten a clown hehe.
    • Bamont, on 05/06/2008, -5/+4That's a crock. People on Digg don't know how to like one candidate without despising the other.

      Digg, and as a whole the Obamatons, have a real niche for hating everyone who disagrees with them. That's why it's always "Anti-Hilary Post 1-5", and "Pro-Obama Post 6-10".
    • volfvolf1, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0vote! We already more than 50000
      Is it true that hillari - idiot?
      http://cool-groove.blog.com/3090211/
  • onefinalstep, on 05/06/2008, -28/+13Jesus, how fast does huffpo churn out this *****? Why do people keep digging it up?
    • jon30041, on 05/06/2008, -9/+7Did you read it? I'm guessing you didn't... this guy is calling for a change of pace, a return to the higher ground.
      • Laughsatyou, on 05/06/2008, -8/+5lol empty words for dolts.
        • romistrub, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4Those are either empty words or a concicse a summary of campaign ideals. Which one will depend entirely on whether or not Obama can actually *deliver* on these words.
    • romistrub, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4"HuffPo"... that's pretty catchy!
    • Gorgamel, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Literally faster than I can bury them for spam. I hit refresh and there's another whole fresh page of it.
    • theapplegod, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0Because every male on Digg (being the majority) got behind him after they boy Paul couldn't close the deal. Now they are Obama "spanks" so it's either deal with it or respond to their constant spam on Digg.
  • cg4et, on 05/06/2008, -14/+40As much as I do not want her to be President, I don't hate her. As much as I have questions about her ethics, I don't think she is all bad. As much as I think she is wrong on many things (including the gas tax "holiday" and "obliterating" Iran), I don't think she is all wrong.

    I just believe that now is the time for something different.
    • Anonchrist, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6That reminds me of the satirical question; "what about all the good things Hitler did."

      Maybe it is just because of the whole"obliterating" perceived enemies thing.
      • PopcornDave, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Wasn't he kind to children and small animals?
        /sarcasm
        • Laughsatyou, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1he liked dogs more than people. who can blame him?
        • staffa, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Well considering the person he knew best was Hitler, it would be hard to make an arguement otherwise with himself as the example of humanity.
      • RealmDown, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3His foreign policy did kinda suck ass, didn't it ?


    • 12DHutch, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2She is all bad. She is all wrong. All bad and all wrong for America.
    • bimtott, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Thank you. I have spent too many years being bitter about politics in a way that has seriously affected my life and my health. I don't think the debate between Hillary and Obama needs to be so negative.
      Honestly, to love Obama by hating Hillary cheapens the argument for Obama. It is a far stronger statement to like him above all else. The same goes for Clinton fans, of course.
      They appeal to different Democrats for different reasons, and those differences ought to be reconcilable in the Fall no matter who makes it.
    • Nth3nSum, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2What is with this idea that you cannot hate someone these days. "Oh I'm sure she/he is a fine person, but I don't agree with her/him".

      Screw that! A politician puts their words and votes up there for judgment on their character and on their policies. She voted for the Iraq War. Enough for me to hate her. Nothing else she has ever done or will do, will be good enough to make up for that one vote. She is not a leader she followed the fools off the cliff, and yet has the audacity to run for the presidency. A person of conscience would be ashamed of their role and bow to the wisdom of one who wasn't so easily fooled. Everyone should hate Hillary for the ruin that is our country today.

    • volfvolf1, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0vote! We already more than 50000
      Is it true that hillari - idiot?
      http://cool-groove.blog.com/3090211/
  • aussiejan, on 05/06/2008, -6/+30I heard a radio interview here in Australia yesterday between the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Co) host and an American. I missed the first part of the interview so I didn't catch who he was. They were talking about the election and Obama vs Clinton and McCain vs The Unknown Democrat. He talked about Obama's strengths and weaknesses vs McCain, in the end saying Obama would have a good chance to beat McCain because he would draw a lot of Independents. When talking about Hillary, though, he ended by saying "a lot of people really hate her."
    • InfamousAtheist, on 05/06/2008, -2/+10It used to be all Republicans who hated her. They loooove to hate the Clintons.

      Now a good many Democrats hate her too... and meekly admit those Republicans had a point.
      • RealmDown, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Disagree, softly or vehemently; stand against, softly or vehemently; assist others who are against, softly or vehemently;

        But, as soon as you hate, you have started down the path of destruction, and at the very least away from integrity.

        • petebot, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.
          • DephexTwin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Yes, that was my emotional progression watching Episodes I - III.
          • kashk5, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1No, hate leads to the dark side
    • whataboutdave, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7Her problem is that her whole campaign leans on her "experience" and her sway with old white people. McCain has her beaten on both counts and would crush her in a general election.
      • 47f0, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Thank you. Every argument she has made, McCain absolutely obliterates her. You'd think a savvy politician would keep the big picture in mind, but Hillary's just running this like a six-year-old kid playing a game where he gets to change the rules every turn.
    • volfvolf1, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0vote! We already more than 50000
      Is it true that hillari - idiot?
      http://cool-groove.blog.com/3090211/
  • SgtMarvin, on 05/06/2008, -22/+4Well you seem to be forgetting that besides her 8 years as a senator, she had another 8 as the First Lady (a very lowly position that nobody's probably heard of).
    • InfamousAtheist, on 05/06/2008, -1/+12We remember... that she was not elected to that "office." (which it's not, btw).
      • alk509, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2It's the Clinton mind-slime argument: As you know, the Clintons possess the unnatural ability of secreting a gooey "mind-slime" in their sleep. A process of osmotic absorption through the skin allows the Clintons to suck up each other's mind-slime, thereby transferring their inner-most thoughts, experiences and abilities from one to the other. Having shared a bed with Bill, Hilldog can indeed lay claim to her husband's experience as president (at least the experience he gained on days where he actually slept on the same bed as her).
        • InnerRayg, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Insulting her experience -and- her husband's infidelity in one comment?

          Holy mother of God, I thought this article was about learning to not Hate someone.
    • Hillsfar, on 05/06/2008, -2/+11And while she was First Lady, she endured sniper fire and brought peace to Ireland. Yeah, yeah, yeah whatever.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4In 1993, Bill Clinton appointed Hillary Clinton to head and be the chairwoman of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform, hoping to replicate the success she had in leading the effort for Arkansas education reform.[130] The recommendation of the task force became known as the Clinton health care plan, a comprehensive proposal that would require employers to provide health coverage to their employees through individual health maintenance organizations. The plan was quickly derided as "Hillarycare" by its opponents; some protesters against it became vitriolic, and during a July 1994 bus tour to rally support for the plan, she was forced to wear a bulletproof vest at times.[131][132] The plan did not receive enough support for a floor vote in either the House or the Senate, although both chambers were controlled by Democrats, and proposal was abandoned in September of 1994.[131] Clinton later acknowledged in her book, Living History, that her political inexperience partly contributed to the defeat, but mentioned that many other factors were also responsible. The First Lady's approval ratings, which had generally been in the high-50s percent range during her first year, fell to 44 percent in April 1994 and 35 percent by September 1994.[133] Republicans made the Clinton health care plan a major campaign issue of the 1994 midterm elections,[134] which saw a net Republican gain of fifty-three seats in the House election and seven in the Senate election, winning control of both; many analysts and pollsters found the plan to be a major factor in the Democrats' defeat, especially among independent voters.[135] Opponents of universal health care would continue to use "Hillarycare" as a pejorative label for similar plans by others.[136]


      Clinton reads to a child during a school visitAlong with Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, she was a force behind passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997,[137][138][139][140] a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage, and conducted outreach efforts on behalf of enrolling children in the program once it became law.[140] She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare.[141] She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.[47] The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome.[47] Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.[47] In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady.[47][142] In 1999, she was instrumental in passage of the Foster Care Independence Act, which doubled federal monies for teenagers aging out of foster care.[142] As First Lady, Clinton hosted numerous White House Conferences, including ones on Child Care (1997),[143] Early Childhood Development and Learning (1997),[144] and Children and Adolescents (2000),[145] and the first-ever White House Conferences on Teenagers (2000)[146] and Philanthropy (1999).[147]

      Hillary Clinton traveled to 79 countries during this time,[148] breaking the mark for most-travelled First Lady held by Pat Nixon.[149] In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in the People's Republic of China itself,[150] declaring "that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights"[150] and resisting Chinese pressure to soften her remarks.[148] She was one of the most prominent international figures during the late 1990s to speak out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Islamist fundamentalist Taliban.[151][152] She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.[153]
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinto ...
      • cashman57, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4wikipedia? LMAO!
      • headzoo, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Seriously? If there's one source you can't trust right now, it's Wikipedia. All sides are peppering their articles with half-truths.
      • br0ck, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4"she was a force behind passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program"

        "The White House wasn't for it. We really roughed them up" in trying to get it approved over the Clinton administration's objections, Hatch said in an interview. "She may have done some advocacy [privately] over at the White House, but I'm not aware of it. I do like her," Hatch said of Hillary Clinton. "We all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No - Teddy does, but she doesn't."
        http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03 ...
    • 47f0, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1SgtMarvin - that's just foolish. It's a bit like saying that Robin Givens should have a shot at the heavyweight title because of her "experience" as Tyson's wife. Next you'll be telling me Laura Bush has executive experience.
  • inobla, on 05/06/2008, -10/+27No... it really is about hating Hillary. She asked for it.
    • robx0r, on 05/06/2008, -3/+0Sounds like you're the typical Barack supporter. Incapable of being objective, and only able to spout hatred.
      • 1timeuser, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Actually as an Obama supporter myself I tend to agree. Most of the people on digg are ***** stupid and will find any reason (regardless of how inane it is) to hate on Hillary. Grow the ***** up America.
        • starmanfalls, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1hating Hillary is fun and entertaining. I am grown up and I will hate anyone who has earned it. especially that ***** wourthless pile of ***** and her husband too. so ***** you Mr Judgemental
    • volfvolf1, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0vote! We already more than 50000
      Is it true that hillari - idiot?
      http://cool-groove.blog.com/3090211/
  • BaseballGuyCAA, on 05/06/2008, -12/+17I despise all three candidates the media handpicked for us to choose from. For me, it's all about hating the Hildebeest.
    • jefuchs, on 05/06/2008, -4/+13I'm older than most of you, and I honestly cannot remember the media picking candidates as blatantly as they did this time. Republicans don't really want McCain, and Dems REALLY don't want Hillary, and they'll take Obama only because SOMEBODY has to be president.

      We've been used on a wholesale basis!
      • bicyclethief, on 05/06/2008, -4/+9Not true. Many Dems are not "settling" for Obama at all. He's got qualities I've waited to see in a candidate my whole life.
        • GhostyBoy, on 05/06/2008, -2/+11He's not saying that lots of people don't legitimately support Obama. Lots of people do, and good for them. Most Obama supporters I talk to have been pretty cool.

          It's the fact that the media fiercely overplayed their hand in this election. Paul and Kucinich had a lot of internet support, and rather than acknowledge it and build on it, they shut those candidates out completely. Rather than working with the new media and the public opinion they tried to dictate public opinion.

          Most Paul, Kuccinich or independant people are going to like Obama better. He is the only one left who has a clue. But many people feel that their views have no representation in the media.

          Obama maybe progressive, but from a Canadian point of view he swings pretty far to the right.
          • bicyclethief, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2I think you put too much stock in the media choosing the candidate for people. Paul and Kucinich didn't have enough mainstream appeal to their respective parties, for one reason or another-- that's why they weren't in it. Internet buzz needs to be taken with a grain of salt because a relatively small group of ppl can generate a lot of online noise that doesn't proportionally translate to real world votes.
          • GhostyBoy, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6I would say that was true if Paul's people hadn't raised all that cash for him. You can't spam cash.

            I'm not going to deny your point about taking online buzz with a grain of salt, but I think you underestimate the media's power. They control what people, companies, brands and ideas become household names. The only difference between Britney Spears and ten thousand talentless hacks who can (kind of) sing and look good in a miniskirt is the media exposure and saturation.

            The same goes for a political candidate. Most people are too lazy to seek out the candidate that truly appeals to their sensibilities, and wouldn't vote for one anyway if they thought they had no chance. I would bet that a large percentage of all the voters have done very little research and sway in the political winds the media creates with silly controversies.

            The media's talking heads influence the populace dramatically. This is even more true when the vast majority of people are extremely gullible, and trained to latch on to catchy slogans and empty sales pitches.

          • DanMiller, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1Don't forget that every highschool student on the planet was for Ron Paul. People who couldn't even vote had bumper stickers. The internet is not the greatest gauge of true support by the population.
          • bicyclethief, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3The media determines exposure. But exposure doesn't equate to candidate adoption, which you seem to imply or emphasize far too much. Cases in point: Giuliani and Romney. Both arguably got much more media attention than McCain, but neither campaign was very persuasive and/or appealing to garner vast voter support.
          • patch6, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1bicyclethief: http://www.journalism.org/node/9610 shows how McCain dominated the press from Jan 28 to Feb 3, two days before Super Tuesday.

            The results of it were obvious, with McCain making a sweep that was basically predetermined. Maybe if Ron Paul was as compromised as him, and had pledged loyalty to the UN and the CFR's aims, he would have won, but that would make him just like the other frontrunners, and no improvement at all, unless the aim was to completely undermine the country's founding principles.
      • ssn697, on 05/06/2008, -6/+5How did the media pick the candidates "blatantly" this time around? In September, it was decreed by the MSM: Rudy vs. Hillary. Fred Thompson MIGHT have a shot. McCain's candidacy was OVER, dead in the water.

        So how do you say the media picked the candidates? They didn't get either nominee correct!

        I am really tired of people having two month memories, then claiming the candidates were "hand picked by the media". The media was completely wrong.
        • PopcornDave, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7Would "steered" be a better description then? Because that's what they've been trying to do from the very beginning.
          Of course the reason the OP doesn't remember it, and neither do I, is because we never had the same 24 hour news cycle that we do today. That's the whole reason the media is steering the election - it's so that they have something to pontificate about.
          • ssn697, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Okay, so they "steered" people to Rudy and Hillary, with a side of Fred Thompson. Again, how does that mesh with who is actually winning?

            I am 45 years old, so playing the "you people don't remember" doesn't work. I am talking about this election, and the MSM choices. They were NOT Obama and McCain.
          • PopcornDave, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1@ssn697

            You're right it doesn't, but do you remember the media being so blatant in the past like they are now in trying to form public opinion? Hell, I'm 46 but I don't remember the media being so overtly blatant in their attempts to make news to report. Sure they've done it in the past, but they had more subterfuge about it.
        • jcm267, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2This election cycle really should've put the nail in coffin of every "the MSM picks our candidates" argument. I'm too lazy to look up the old vegas odds on McCain right now, but I'm sure that if you put money on him winning the nomination in September of last year you'd be looking forward to a handsome payoff right now.
    • volfvolf1, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0vote! We already more than 50000
      Is it true that hillari - idiot?
      http://cool-groove.blog.com/3090211/
  • monkeycatDx, on 05/06/2008, -17/+8http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/What_I_hate_abou ...
    ***** THIS TOPIC
    • mpphan, on 05/06/2008, -6/+3I WISH I COULD DIGG YOU 1000 TIMES MORE.
    • NeoNightmareX, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1"Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
      Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate."
  • bachrock, on 05/06/2008, -5/+6Isn't it about both?
    • fleischner, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2I don't want BHO to be president, so I must be racist. I don't want Hillary to be president, so I must be a misogynist too. The fact that I would happily vote for a female black conservative must not be acknowledged.
      • Ryland, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Who is saying that not liking Obama is racist or not liking Clinton is misogyny? The only time I hear that kind of rhetoric is when a conservative is using it "ironically", like you just did. I've never seen or heard an Obama supporter or a Clinton supporter say or write that, not even ironically, unless they were saying it about someone who made actual racist or misogynist remarks. If you don't like them, please articulate your reasons why; if you can't articulate why you don't like them, please spare us the faux persecution complex.
      • 47f0, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Racist? No. Sexist? No. Just kind of slow. Possibly something in your childhood diet. Conservatives, and the Republicans that claim to be on the Conservative bandwagon have sort of given us a bellyful. The only trickle-down we've gotten smells like it trickled down from a latrine. The only brilliant Conservative foreign policy acheivement in two decades has been... uh, it's been... Oh never mind.

        The real problem with Conservatives is they are, by and large, gutless. They hide under the Republican umbrella like school-girls afraid to get a drop of rain on them. Or maybe, even more frightening, they actually think the Republicans represent them. If Conservatives had one brain, or two balls between them, they'd send a scorched earth message to the Republican party. But that's sort of not happening, now is it?
  • unpolloloco, on 05/06/2008, -10/+18I completely detest Hillary - simply because she is unable to be honest - ever. She will say